Retired people could work for pensions..

Jennifer_Jane

PaulF81 wrote: »

I suppose I could ask for the 12 years of contributions back on my public sector pension that was cut in X factor abatement, but I would be laughed at.

The fact is, the state would be better off giving you back all your NI contributions and giving you no state pension, because depending on your age, on average you will take out far more than you ever put in. Thats my whole point.

Re your first paragraph, we are not discussing private or company pensions, we are discussing the State Pension. I cannot debate on your personal circumstances, naturally. I don't know them. So that is a spurious argument.

Regarding the second paragraph, that would be fine by me, as I'm in fine health just at the moment, so chance (and statistics) would indicate you are correct. Well, here's hoping. So far, however, it's going to be another 5 or so years before I break even just on the two years I forfeited (or gambled on beating). So, we'll have to see about the money contributed.

BobQ

Even if all possible objections to forcing people to work after they retire could be overcome, I cannot see it working.

For those who have provided for their retirement by some means they will simply refuse and unless its proposed to conscript these affluent pensioners into these unpaid jobs or fine them for their lack of cooperation I cannot see much changing.

Where this will have an impact is on the average pensioner who has worked hard but cannot afford to retire without a state pension they have paid into in good faith. Provided they are fit enough to work they will look at this mad scheme and conclude that they may as well keep working rather than retire and be faced with petty rules about whatr they are required to do for their pension.

How exactly this will help the younger generation I do not know. They will find less vacancies because people of retirement age will keep working.

Of course those who are unfit and unable to work, even if they have worked hard for most of their lives, and will continue to be treated like an under class.

The reality is that some baby boomers can afford to retire (and will do so), but others cannot. We need to find ways of allowing those who can do so to retire in order to create opportunities for the younger generation rather than allow this resentment to build up in society.

My friend is 63. He could have retired from the public sector at 60 on a pension of £32K, instead he drew this pension (plus about £100K lump sum) and then carried on working part time in the same job earning about £15K working mornings. His pension is now over £35K (index linked) and he is still paying 40% tax. In two years time he will get another £6K of state pension.

OK its his choice but I cannot see why he cannot live on £35K a year and allow someone else to do the job. If he wants to occupy his mind he could indeed work part time for free at the local CAB or whatever. He freely admits that he does not need the money, he has no mortgage, his children have no need of his help, he has no debts. But I am sure if such a scheme as Paul has outlined wee introduced this chap would keep working till he was 70 or more.

StevieJ

PaulF81 wrote: »

The surplus would have been there those years after the 1997 GE anyhow, to suggest anything else is false. The raving loony party could have been elected in 1997 after the difficult policy decisions the tories had taken and run a surplus for christs sake!

The surplus the Labour party was a pittance in comparison to the deficit we were left with in 2008 anyhow.

You made a statement and it was untrue, simple as

ruggedtoast

It seems clear reading this thread that boomers have been on the make and on the take. They are taking out a king's ransom, but have only paid in a pauper's purse.

The state pension should be abolished immediately.

PaulF81

StevieJ wrote: »

You made a statement and it was untrue, simple as

If you want to be a pedant, yes, granted it was. The intent was to point out New Labour inherited a golden chalice and urinated in it.

BobQ

ruggedtoast wrote: »

It seems clear reading this thread that boomers have been on the make and on the take. They are taking out a king's ransom, but have only paid in a pauper's purse.
.

Any channce of a link to the evidence that justifies this WAG?

thorsoak

Here come Paul's little friends, Rugged Toast ....and very soon, I prophesy Fatballz!

Think its time to tiptoe away and let them have their tantrum to themselves ....

PaulF81

Nice back down! See you havent come up with any decent responses to my post?

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

It seems clear reading this thread that boomers have been on the make and on the take. They are taking out a king's ransom, but have only paid in a pauper's purse.

The state pension should be abolished immediately.

But we all agree that bloomers had to pay down that massive debt 250% of GDP left to them by the over 85 years old who incurred the huge debt fighting the WW2.

Even Paul knows that this is true although he is a little shy about saying so.

Do you blame or praise the originators of that huge debt and do you blame or priase those bloomers who had a terrible life paying it all back?

Jennifer_Jane

Paul - still waiting to find out how you would persuade the electorate to vote for this ridiculously unfair and ideotic idea?